Your radical definitions and arguments also piss me off, too. Still, I do NOT use the F-word because I know that I need to show a little respect to my opponent even if I seriously disagree with what he/she says.

Research shows that fetuses do have mouth movements. But that does not fit your requirement, I guess.

Since it takes time for newborn babies to learn a spoken language, I am afraid that I can't find such a person.

Sorry but it's clear you don't take what I say seriously and nitpick on pointless stuff... I never intended "before he was born" to mean "in the womb" and you know that. I meant before he was conceived. Sigh. No point really.

If everything we care for/about is taken away, what is left in humanity?

Science? Discovery. Would allow us to learn more about the secrets of the Universe. AIs are one example, of course. The secrets of the Universe isn't just the cosmos.

Remember: science is not about building tools and technology, that's just a side-effect and is called engineering. Science is all about knowledge/discovery and thinking/imagination, not "practical stuff". It leads to it, but it's unrelated to it.

YONG wrote:

We live in a society; we need to respect other people's values and cultures. What's wrong with adhering to social norms and cultures?

The vast majority of scientific concepts are human-defined. Are they crap?

Scientific concepts are based on data, not opinion. I didn't say it's *wrong* to adhere to social norms.

It's *wrong* to use them as an *argument* or to stop you from fulfilling whatever -- i.e. using it as a reason against something is what's *wrong*. It's wrong because it's an artificial -- and pointless -- restriction/reason.

When I say I don't care about them, I mean in context of arguing. They mean nothing. They're not an argument, unless we're arguing about them (which we aren't). Religion is the same thing (and in fact part of many cultures in some).

I don't consider religion wrong, I'm open-minded. I just consider using it as an argument to be wrong in this context. Not that religion is wrong (it could be right, I'm agnostic), but that by itself as an argument is pointless since it doesn't adhere to the scientific method. What's there to even argue about with it? Nothing. It shuts down all arguments since it's fallacious.

Imagine someone saying "don't research X, because religion is against it". You'd ignore such argument, right? It's the EXACT SAME THING with culture/social norms for me. No god damn difference. Stop being so biased just because you personally like/respect the culture or social norms. Do the same with religion then, which is part of many cultures and ingrained into them.

Why can't you open your eyes and see this simple thing?

If a new discovery, such as AI, challenges social norms, that's *not* an argument against it. Not in the slightest. Just as any discovery that challenged religious beliefs were not bad at all, not in the slightest. Because that's your entire argument when you bring it. What's your problem, seriously? You're so stubborn to see such simple logic.

Zero means zero. It shouldn't even be mentioned, because that's what zero impact means. Logic and culture/social norms are two separate things, zero impact between them, and thus it can't possibly be used as an argument when it has zero weight.

Those have no value in a Universe as you believe (no creator etc). Science and discovery does because it enables you to KNOW and find out how the Universe works or is.

The fact that you think we already know the answer to the Universe shows just how deep and stubborn/ignorant you are. Hey, maybe humans DO have souls. Maybe. But without science we won't find out. We won't find out if culture is worthless or not using culture. That's the difference.

But of course, I'm talking to someone who ALREADY KNOWS the Universe is nothing special and that we're in an endless loop and arose from random fluctuations. I forgot, my bad. From the other thread I know for sure you're the "preacher type" right now.

(note: when I say we're in a simulation, it is just my BELIEF based on many factors I won't go into -- that's why I want discovery, to know FOR SURE -- on the other hand, you already know "for sure" anyway)

About the fetus thing: please man. I was talking about people thinking of stuff before their time as being better -- stuff they haven't experienced directly but imagined it based on historical data (books and so on). Yes, it may shock you, but people do have imagination. People can imagine things based on what they learn. Heck, simulation is crucial to science also. You can read of the laws of history and decide for yourself if it was indeed better or not, but it takes a bit of brain to figure out how it could look like in the future, sorry.

This applies no matter the era. To people 500 years ago, the "future" means today, 2017. To you, future means something special, but to them, 2017 was special. Had they changed their idiotic laws to cater to the "future 2017" we wouldn't have gone through so much pointless suffering over the years, but sure, let's repeat the same mistakes. I have zero respect for people who don't learn from history and think "this time it's different, because it's me, I'm more special than my ancestors and the laws I live in are more special than those of my ancestors'".

The fact that you agree it is "impossible" for the majority to think that stuff they haven't experienced (i.e era before their time) is "better" than their current era (what they experienced) proves my point anyway.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou can attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum